Skip to content


A. Doraswami Nadar Vs. Joseph L. Mother and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Mad319; 92Ind.Cas.119
AppellantA. Doraswami Nadar
RespondentJoseph L. Mother and anr.
Cases ReferredPritchard v. Bangor Corporation
Excerpt:
madras district municipalities act (v of 1930) - rules for conduct of elections, rule 2(2)--nomination paper--signature by agent of candidate validity of--acceptance of nomination paper by returning officer-misconstruction of rules--revision--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115. - .....was written in the nomination paper by his son owing to his (candidate's absence at the time) the learned subordinate judge has found that the son was authorised to sign his father's signature for this purpose but it has to be observed that the signature purports to be that of the candidate and there is no indication that it is written by somebody else. the learned subordinate judge has held that the son was in fact authorised so to sign but under the election rules to which reference will be made in a moment, such a signature by the agent is not recognised and, therefore, the nomination paper was invalid.2. for the petitioner two points are urged; (1) that not only under the common law but under many english statutes signature by the agent even orally authorised is perfectly good and.....
Judgment:

Odgers, J.

1. These are revision petitions to revise the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in petitions presented to him under the Madras Municipalities Act, 1920. It appears that in an election for the Tuticorin Municipality, 8th ward, which was to be held in January 1923, a nomination paper was put in for Mr. A. Doraiswami Nadar which was admittedly not signed by the candidate but the name of the candidate was written in the nomination paper by his son owing to his (candidate's absence at the time) The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the son was authorised to sign his father's signature for this purpose but it has to be observed that the signature purports to be that of the candidate and there is no indication that it is written by somebody else. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the son was in fact authorised so to sign but under the Election Rules to which reference will be made in a moment, such a signature by the agent is not recognised and, therefore, the nomination paper was invalid.

2. For the petitioner two points are urged; (1) that not only under the Common Law but under many English Statutes signature by the agent even orally authorised is perfectly good and sufficient (2) that as the nomination paper has been accepted by the Chairman no question as to its validity is now open. The learned Subordinate Judge has carefully gone into the provisions contained in the rules and he has come to the conclusion that their object and scope require that the signature should be put in by the very party concerned and not by his proxy. Rule 2(2) runs thus:

Every nomination paper shall be subscribed by two such electors as proposer and seconder and the candidate shall subscribe a declaration on it expressing his willingness to stand for election.

3. I am of opinion that it is no guide to refer to various English cases such as In re Whitley Partners (1886) 32 Ch. D. 337 : 34 W.R. 505, which is a case under the Companies Act or the dictum in 1 Halsbury's Laws of England page 157 that an agent may be authorised to sign for another orally, which of course cannot be disputed, nor has the case cited in Pritchard v. Bangor Corporation (1888) 13 A.C. 241 : 57 L.J.Q.B. 313 : 58 L.T. 502 : 37 W.R. 103 anything to do with this matter. I am not disposed to disagree with the construction placed on Rule 2(2) by the learned Subordinate Judge.

4. As to the second point, that once the Chairman has passed the nomination paper it is beyond question, that X think is disproved by the rules for the decision of disputes. Government Order 1134, dated 30th November 1920. Under Rule 11(c) 'if in the opinion of the Judge the result of they election has been materially affected by any irregularity in respect of a nomination paper...the election of the returned candidate shall be void.' That must refer to a nomination paper alter it has been accepted by the Chairman and what turns out to be invalid or irreglaf. The Judge is there given jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and if necessary declare the election void. That is a strong argument against the sanctity of a nomination paper which has been accepted by the Chairman.

5. Another point has been argued with reference to these revision petitions and that is that they do not lie and in the latest Full Bench decision in C.R.P. No. 541 of 1923 the Chief Justice, Phillips and Kumaraswami Sastri, JJ., in a very similar case to this held in a decision as to ,the, construction of rules which are similar that there was no question of jurisdiction or of acting illegally, 'that the learned Judge had a point of construction before him and he decided it to the best of his ability and 'that the question of doubtful construction of a rule is not one (hat would enable the Court to interfere in revision.' In my opinion these rules are strictly within the purview of those remarks in the latest Pull Bench case. Even if they are not and civil revision petitions do lie, I am of opinion for the reasons given above, that the learned Subordinate Judge is correct in the decision that he arrived at. There is no doubt that in this case if an invalid nomination paper was in fact received and admitted the result of the election would be materially affected.

6. The civil revision petitions must be dismissed, C.R.P. No. 940 without costs and C.R.P. No. 911 with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //